2 comments:

I was, of course kidding, Dr. Zycher, and more accurately half-kidding. More like cajoling. We could use a lot more of you around here.

To your article:

Finally, we want — or we ought to want — to preserve property rights and the constitutional protections against both takings and the efforts of political majorities to impose losses upon unpopular groups.

I don't know if "fairness" or "justice" means anything to those in need, and I'm not sure it should. (Jean Valjean, for instance.)

I try not to use "tax fairness" arguments, even though they should be self-evident. But nothing is self-evident to everyone, Dr. Z.

What America should know is that the mule they're trying to harness has options, too. The mule could set up in the Cayman Islands and sell their best stuff for $1000 a pill and still probably break even.

QEII, Jacques Chirac, Kim Jung Il and Barbra Streisand don't wait in lines at the pharmacist and don't show their discount cards either.

If socializing pharmaceutical research were all that great an idea, England, France, North Korea and Hollywood would be sending us drugs instead of the other way around.

The Reform Club, c. 1915

The home of classical liberalism, where the spirits of Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, G. K. Chesterton, H. G. Wells, Hilaire Belloc and other intellectual adventurers live on. To all those of fair argument and good cheer, our doors open wide.